INFORMATION TO USERS This dissertation was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding o f the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 A Xerox Education Company SWINGLE, Edward Eugene, 1927- THB NATURE OF SENTENTIAL BONDS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO RECOGNITION AND RECALL. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1972 Speech University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN' MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE NATURE OP SENTENTIAL BONDS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO RECOGNITION AND RECALL DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University by Edward E. Swingle, M.A., B.A. * * # The Ohio State University 1972 Approved by Adviser Department of Speech PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. University Microfilms, A Xerox Education Company ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks is given to the Speech Departments of The Ohio State University and Akron State University for furnishing subjects for the experiments conducted in this study. ii VITA August 18, 1927 . Born— Mt. Vernon, Ohio 1952 ................ B.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1961-1962............ Research Assistant, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1962 ......... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1965 . Assistant Professor, School of Speeoh, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio FIELD OF STUD? Major Field: Behavioral Communication 111 TABLE OP CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................... ii VITA .................................................... Ill LIST OP T A B L E S ....................................... Vi Chapter I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ................... 1 II REVIEW OP LITERATURE ......................... 8 Sentential Bonds ............................. 10 Experimental Studies ......................... 19 Verbal Learning ............................. 25 III ORGANIZATION AND SENTENTIAL BONDS .......... 29 Levels of S t r u c t u r e ......................... 29 Sentential Bonds and Structure .............. 31 Commonality ............................. 33 Sentence Connectives .... ............ 35 Phonological Devices ..................... 36 Tagmemes................................. 36 Derivation of Hypotheses ..................... 37 The Extent of Sentential Bonds .............. 43 IV EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES ..................... 46 The Message Treatments ....................... 46 Treatment I— Base Message .............. 46 Treatment II-A and I I - B ................ 48 Treatment I I I ........................... 51 Treatment I V ............................. 53 The T e s t s .......... 54 Experiment I ............................... 57 Experiment I I ........................ 61 Experiment I I I ............................... 66 iv Page V CONCLUSION................................... 69 Implications for Further Research .......... 73 APPENDICES................................ 80 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................119 v LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Means and Differences of Recognition Scores between Base Treatment Group and Other Treatment Groups— Oral Message .. 59 2. Means and Differences of Recognition Scores between Base Treatment Group and Other Treatment Groups— Written Message . 63 3. Means and Differences of Reading Time between Base Treatment Group and Other Treatment Groups— Written Message .......... 65 4. Means and Differences of Recall Scores between Base Treatment Group and Other Treatment Groups— Oral Message .............. 67 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW There is a term that appears In the literature of psychology, linguistics, and speech that denotes a series of sentences that are so related to one another that they appear logically, rationally, and psychologically con­ nected or related. This term Is connected discourse, a generic term for such communicative forms as speeches, essays, conversations, and similar forms. The term, con­ nected discourse, distinguishes such utterances as words and Isolated sentences from sentences that bear some type of relationship to each other. It is also a useful term in distinguishing linguistic research that is based on the syllable, word, and/or sentence from research that is based on a series of related sentences. The term connected discourse Implies that some­ thing connects or bonds various sentences into a coher­ ent whole. When we read an article or listen to a speech we have a feeling that the sentences are related. Organ­ ization, structure, transitions, concepts, repetition, word associations, meaning, paragraph structure, and connectives are some of the devices that are thought by many authors to contribute to coherence of a series of sentences and, by implication, to retention of material contained in such sentences. It is useful and necessary to discriminate among devices that operate over the entire unit of connected dis­ course from those that operate between sentences or within the paragraph. Such typical devices as putting topic sen­ tences in chronological or spatial order serve to unite the topic sentences together, but do little to explain how the individual sentences are united. Mental or conceptual sets fall into the same category. Thus, the author who states in an opening paragraph that the material that is to follow is evidence to support certain Issues is organizing the paragraph, not the sentences within the paragraph. On the other hand, the use of such words as "thus," "merely," "but," etc., the order of sentences, repetition of words and phrases, and other devices serve to bind the individual sentences together. Menzel recognizes this distinction when he talks about "Intersentence syntax" as being something different from "interparagraph syntax."1 Whorf also recognizes the existence of sentence relationship; he calls them Peter Menzel, "The Linguistic Bases of the Theory of Writing Items for Instruction Stated In Natural Lan­ guage," in On the Theory of Achievement Test Items, ed. John R. Borrauth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), p. 152. "intersentential linkages."^ This fact is of some import­ ance: the failure to make this distinction may be the basis for the conflicting results in empirical studies of organizational structure. In other words there are var­ ious levels of organizational structure. It is difficult to select a generic term for the devices that unite a series of sentences together or for the condition of their being united. There is no gener­ ally accepted term. It seems inexact to refer to them as intersentential syntax when neither a theory or body of knowledge exists for such a syntax. The term or phrase that will be used in this study is sentential relation­ ship; for the devices that cause this relationship to exist, sentential bonds. Not many studies deal directly with sentential relationships in connected discourse; many more deal with organization or organizational structure. Some of these will be discussed in Chapter II. The most Import­ ant thing about them is that the findings are not consis­ tent . Some have found organizational structure to be significant In relation to retention; others have not shown organization to be significant. 2 Benjamin Whorf, Language, Thought, and Reality, ed. by John B. Carroll (Cambridge, MassT: The Mitt Press, 1956), p. 152. 4 This present study will deal with sentential relationships that exist within the paragraph or between sentences. Three aspects of them will be studied. First, commonality or redundancy between sentences; second, dif­ ferentiation between sentences and its function in group­ ing sentences; and third, phonological devices that may help to relate a series of sentences. These three aspects of sentential